bionicfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:The Six Million Dollar Man (1973)
Moonshot XYZ I'm puzzled by the entry in the film vs episodic section on the moonshot. This aspect of Steve's history was not shown in the original telefilm, which begins the morning of the lifting body accident. His experience is referenced only by Steve's line: "You know, Doc, out there, just before the sun comes up, it's almost like being on the Moon again. It kind of relaxes me." There is no conflict between versions as to the nature of that mission, as it is not shown and barely referenced in the original telefilm. To the extent it is referenced, the mission clearly involved a walk on the Lunar surface, as is supported by references in countless subsequent episodes. Perhaps the extra Martin Balsalm VO narration in TMATD has confused the writer, as clearly that audio was produced and not used for the original edit, unlike most of the footage the new narration is used over. Can anyone shed some light, as I'm tempted to delete this note, but would like some input before so doing. Major Sloan 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC) :The Mystery of the Six Million Dollar Man pilot strikes again! Honestly, more confusion crops up over the discrepancies between the original pilot and its syndicated counterpart -- mostly because the pilot is rare to find. So you're saying Balsalm's VO wasn't in the original? I can't recall one way or the other. If true, it certainly changes things. But this is why I love the wiki -- it's all about the research. :I have the two-disc DiscoVision release collecting dust somewhere. I guess it's about time I watched it again -- and took notes! For now, MJ, go ahead and remove the note. I have a feeling it won't be the only casualty after my viewing; this article is mostly a Deconstructed comparison between the two versions, anyway, and that's not the primary function of episode articles. — Paul (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) ::The original ABC pilot did feature voiceovers from Martin Balsam, and the syndicated two-part version featured additional Balsam voiceovers (recorded years later) to help "stretch" 90 minutes into 120 minutes.--Valor 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) :::Yes I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, Valor is absolutely correct. Basalm's VO in the original edit does not reference the Moonshot. Since the opening shot after the text in the original is of the HL-10 on the tarmac, none of the VO that leads to this scene in TMATD would exist in the earlier edit, nor is there any VO until after Steve sees his new arm. It does discuss his thoughts on what to tell Steve about his bionic transformation, e.g. "..he would be transformed into something that had never before existed- Cyborg; a reconstructed being capable of inordinate physical feats". :::In general, The Moon and the Desert expands the VO to become the glue of the story; The Six Million Dollar Man (Pilot) just resorts to it at key moments.Major Sloan 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) The uncredited writers problem Valor has now tacked on a supporting document to the claim that Bochco was in on the writing of the pilot. But I wonder what the provenance of that article is. I also have to wonder why Bochco gets credit as a writer in the credit list but not at the top of the page, where the script is claimed as just being written by Simoun/Rodman. Moreover, why are the names RIchard Greene and Melvin Levy commonly attached to the project all over the internet? We could, I suppose, believe that it's just IMDB starting something that other people picked up on, but it's pervasive enough that it probably warrants our attention. CzechOut ☎ | 04:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC) :"Provenance" is a fairly pretentious word for an issue this small, but I'll play along. The document I submitted was an official MCA Universal call sheet distributed to ABC affiliates at the time the "pilot" was aired. I copied it (along with dozens of other call sheets from both bionic shows) at the Library of Congress several years ago while doing research for "The Bionic Book." Therefore, its "provenance" is quite legitimate. As for Mr. Bochco, my guess is that he didn't do enough original writing (or in this instance, re-writing) to qualify for an official, on-screen credit. The Writers Guild of America is very strict about these matters. Unless you contribute a certain percentage of original words, you will go unacknowledged. Regarding Greene and Levy, I've never seen anything official that ties them to this project, and IMDB is no stranger to factual errors. User:Valor ::In any event, credits will reflect the on-screen credits of the original pilot. Anything more, whether confirmed or speculated, is appropriate for the Trivia or Deconstructed sections. — Paul (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Really a pilot? This may be a controversial thing to say, but I wonder if we can shore up the claim that this thing was a pilot. My admittedly cursory examination leads me to think is that it was just another movie-of-the-week on The ABC Wednesday Movie of the Week. It may be that we all just assume it's the pilot simply because it's the first. Do we actually have verifiable proof that it was made with the intent of sparking a series? I kinda think Darren McGavin and Martin Balsam's absence from subsequent productions might betray the fact that the film's producers didn't get the actors under contract, because there wasn't a perceived need to do so. I mean, seriously: why would you not want those two guys under contract? I love 'em, but Anderson and Oppenheimer just weren't of the same caliber as McGavin and Balsam, back then. The fact that the other two pre-series movies were actually moved to ABC Suspense Theater — a wheel series used as a staging grounds for many other concepts that eventually made it to series — makes me lean towards believing Wine, Women and War was the actual series pilot. This thing has always felt entirely incongruous to me, in the same way that the M*A*S*H movie is obviously a different take on the same source material than the pilot of the M*A*S*H TV series. Anyone got deeper insight into those very early days of SMDM? CzechOut ☎ | 13:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC) :Interesting supposition -- one that would be fun to research. The only problem is that we first must decide what constitutes a pilot. Intent or series? And I'm afraid even television execs wouldn't be able to agree on that one. My personal opinion is that both work. So even if the subsequent movies and series were not planned, I would consider the first movie a pilot, ex post facto. — Paul (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) ::Another reason to consider this thing separate from the series is its completely different production arrangement. Harve Bennett and Glen Larson weren't attached at this point; neither was it is "produced in association with Silverton Productions, Inc." Larson didn't come in until "WWW" and Bennett and Silverton, not until "Population, Zero". It was, like most movies that spawn subsequent series, a production literally unto itself. CzechOut ☎ | 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Citation Needed I need confirmation (likely from the script) that there's a scene deleted, where children were playing a board game. I imagine if this ocurred anywhere in the movie, it would have been shortly before the scene with the car wreck. Perhaps we saw the boy playing the game, before his mother took him for a drive? This entry is based on hearsay, something that was passed along to me at one time. But I'm including it anyway, in case it turns out there is any validity to it. — redrain85 (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Correct title The term "Cyborg" should not be included in the title of this movie. While it was used for some of the print ads and TV promo spots (to better-connect it to the then-best selling book), the actual on-screen title is simply THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN. I have a (very worn) 16mm print and the original 1978 laserdisc, and both bear the correct SMDM title. I posted a cleaned-up title frame as an example of the pilot's original title design. — Matt (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :I'm willing to accept the title change if we can confirm that the first network broadcast was, indeed, The Six Million Dollar Man. — Paul (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ::Sorry, but I gotta side with Matt on this one. Check out the scans I posted. "Cyborg" is nowhere in the title. It's only referenced in the body of the TV review. The other scan comes from a flyer attached to the back of a photo which promoted the pilot. Again, they only refer to "The Six Million Dollar Man." :: :::Why are you sorry, Valor?--this is exactly what I asked for! A great example of the wiki community at work (just remember to indent your replies and sign your posts next time ;)). Awesome clippings, by-the-way! — Paul (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Didn't want you to feel that you were being ganged up on. Simple disagreements can get out of hand.--Valor 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :::::I appreciate that. But I don't think we have anything to worry about. As long as we conduct ourselves in a mature manner and treat each other with respect, even our biggest disagreements can positive experiences. — Paul (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ::::::One caveat:ABC promos did use the word "cyborg" in the title. User:Valor ::::::Then there are these inconvenient truths, seemingly contradictory to what Matt said above: Image:MCADiscoVisionCyborgback.jpg|The back of the January 1979 laser disc release Image:MCADiscoVisionCyborgfront.jpg|The front of the same ::::::At the very least, between Valor's screen cap and these laserdisc images, I think there's enough evidence to suggest that MCA/Universal and ABC did consider Cyborg: The Six Million Dollar Man an "official" alternative title. CzechOut ☎ | 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC) :::::::Definitely fodder for the Deconstruction page. — Paul (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC) :::::::::I'm pretty sure Matt was referring strictly to what appeared on-screen, not the packaging. Since "cyborg" was never incorporated into the March 7 telecast (or subsequent laserdisc), that would make him correct.User:Valor